The Instigator
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
oboeman
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

An ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,783 times Debate No: 7402
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

Yraelz

Pro

Thanks to my opponent and judges. Here goes!

Here is a brief summary of no child left behind and what it intended to do:

'The law reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts, and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend."

The bottom line of such is an aim at improving the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools.

Ideal: (n) a conception of something in its perfection.

Thus the ideal form of no child left behind would perfectly achieve improving the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools. I'd argue that increased education is a definite benefit to the welfare of the United States. Not only through economic competitiveness but also through increased vaccines and cures for societal ills (as in diseases).

All I have to say for now!
oboeman

Con

Greetings to my opponent, Yraelz. May the most logical argument compellingly prevail.

Seemingly, my opponent spuriously implies the debate topic referring to the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) Act as only having the goal of increasing education performance at primary/secondary schools. Assuming this to be the only goal of the act is entirely false, and I'll get to it shortly.

I would like to first point out that this is a tight case and my opponent presents an uninteresting thesis.
This debate should have at least SOME degree of pragmatism in it. I ask that my opponent give a specific and detailed plan in regards to how an ideal form of NCLB ought to function and what an ideal form means. (The current wording of the resolution is extremely biased and favorable for Pro, for obvious reasons.)
Nonetheless, see Appendix A for notable definitions.

An ideal form of doing something (such as in the case of proceeding with NCLB) is the method in which it ought to be carried out. That is, for this debate, one must find the optimal way of carrying out the task of improving the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools. It would even seem to me that standardized testing is something too intrinsic to the NCLB act to not requiring including it into its definition.

As NCLB was originally intended, it also entailed the requirement of schools distributing "name, home phone number and address of every student enrolled to military recruiters and institutions of higher education, unless the student (or the student's parent) specifically opts out." This is in no way good. Why? Because automatically distributing personal information of students to places such as military recruiting centers is not beneficial. This only works to make military recruiting easier for nationalists.

Improving government-defined educational performance is not necessarily a good thing.
The government is corrupt. It cannot be trusted to make the most logical decisions. Arguably, the goal for government IS INDEED to make logical and rational decisions. But under that premise, then the government considered the initial passing of NCLB a logical act. The initial act is inherently flawed in regards to its values (such as the framework intrinsically favoring richer schools over poorer schools). A flawed decision is, by definition, not a logical decision. Given that the passing of NCLB was a flawed decision, it was therefore illogical. Recalling that the government strives to do that which is logical, they failed miserably in their task with the initial passing of NCLB.

Next, the cost and expense for the funding of the initial NCLB act is already immense. But even to consider the expense of a more "ideal" version of NCLB is so astonishingly costly that it's mind-boggling.

I would also like to offer the contention that a higher extent of governmental intervention of education does more harm than good. Education should instead be supported with a much more libertarian approach. Forcing any specific standards on children, as NCLB would inevitably do, only serves as a detriment in improving their welfare.

Finally, a burden of proof falls upon my opponent to prove that, as the resolution states, "An ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States." If my opponent cannot successfully prove this to be true within this debate, then a clear CON vote is in order.
I would negate the resolution by arguing that an ideal form of NCLB would not necessarily be "beneficial" to the "welfare" of the United States. Substituting the definitions into that sentence, we can derive the following:
An ideal form of NCLB would not necessarily be promoting or enhancing well-being to the state of being happy and healthy and prosperous.
NCLB is in no way necessarily a prerequisite to such.

I think that that will be sufficient for the time being.
I reserve the right to expand upon or add arguments in my next round.
I'll go into further depth, accordingly as needed, next round as well.

Cheers,
Oboeman.

============================================
Appendix A: Notable Definitions
Beneficial – adjective - promoting or enhancing well-being.
Welfare - noun - state of being happy and healthy and prosperous.
Debate Round No. 1
Yraelz

Pro

Haha! And I greet you too Oboeman, may the debate be interesting.

I'm just going to be going right down my opponents arguments. Maybe I'll tag some things on at the end.

A-B-U-S-E (Not in a violent way!)
====================
A. My opponent argues that my case is so tight that you, as a voter, are not going to vote for me. Justification? He's being biased against. I probably have a few responses.
1. First, no one is ever going to vote for an abuse story when the resolution actually mandates what the "abuser" is running. Case: An ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States. Anything outside of that is outside of the resolution. If you vote me down because of my case then you vote me down because I was stuck with this side of the resolution.
2. Second, in a debate tournament where we each get to advocate a side once you're never going to vote for an abuse story. Why? Because he gets my position next round and can win with it. I'm not being abusive in any way.
3. My opponent asks for a pragmatic plan on how to do this but that has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution. Offering a plan is nowhere in it. Furthermore extend my definition where I tell you that it is the concept of something in it's perfection.
4. In fact, it doesn't even have to be a real thing. Check out this definition which includes mine and expands upon it.
Ideal: adjective 1 most suitable; perfect. 2 desirable or perfect but existing only in the imagination. http://www.askoxford.com... Oxford dictionary.
5. Next my opponent demands I tell him how this ideal form will function.... Hmmm... I wish I knew quite honestly. I wish I had the ability to know how everything would work in it's perfection. I wish I could walk into the white house right now and tell them what the ideal from of NCLB would be. But that's the point of an ideal isn't it? A gleam of something in it's perfection, a goal to strive towards, always a little out of sight. Always a little room for improvement. Luckily for me the resolution does not say that I must divulge what the ideal form is. Rather it simply says that I must argue the ideal would be beneficial. Notice the WOULD BE in that sentence. It doesn't even matter if the ideal can be attained.
6. Finally. I can think of some really decent arguments against this case (seeing as I'm going to need to next round.) Yet my opponent isn't choosing to run any of those arguments. Thus you're not going to punish me because of what my opponent doesn't do.

An ideal form!.... of doing something?
========================
A. My opponents argument is that an ideal form of doing something is the best way to carry it out.
1. Yeah he's right. The ideal form of doing NCLB would be the way to best way to carry it out.
2. Luckily the resolution doesn't say "Offer the ideal form of doing NCLB", I'd probably just flat out lose on the resolution......
3. Instead the resolution says that the ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial. The ideal form as already defined is the form in it's perfection. A form in it's perfection would meet all of it's goals irrespective of how it was being done. Thus the ideal form of NCLB does indeed meet it's goals whether or not I can tell you how the ideal form of NCLB is being done.

B. Next under this contention my opponent argues that the ideal form would have to include standardized testing because the form today does.
1. That's not true. The resolution allows me to advocate for the ideal.
2. Meaning I don't have to advocate for any past version.
3. But third, it doesn't matter. Whether it uses standardized testing or not it works perfectly..... -.-

The Military Snagged Our Numbers!
=======================
A. My opponents argument is simply that NCLB allows recruiters to have numbers. Thus the ideal form would do this rather perfectly.
1. First I'll argue this has no negative impact at all. The young adults who's numbers/names/etc are given are not forced to sign up.
2. Secondly I'd argue it's a good thing. The fact that so many numbers are coming in means that the military will have to hire more recruiters to manage phone lines. This gives more people jobs.
3. I'll argue that young adults being called is also a good thing. It lets them realize that they potentially have more options. The more options they have, the better choices they can make.
4. And finally. If the recruitment system was working perfectly people would probably know about it. Thus in the worst case scenario I'd postulate that young adults would know enough as to request that there number wasn't given.

Bush is teaching CoRuPt education!
======================
A. Oboeman argues that the government is corrupt and thus it's educational goals are illogical and faulty. Responses:
1. First off there isn't any analysis on why the government is corrupt or would be corrupt.
2. Additionally I'd argue that even if the government was corrupt that doesn't mean that it would have any impact on the education sector. In fact I'd say that even if our government was a secret dictatorship then the education sector would still be fine. Education = country being competitive on a global level. If a country corrupted their education system then they'd just be shooting themselves in the foot. Which believe it or not is not the goal of a corrupt regime.
3. But more importantly than either of those arguments: who cares. My opponent says that "the initial act is inherently flawed". Even if this was true, which I don't think my opponent gives any analysis as to why that is true, it still doesn't impact my case in any way. The idea of the ideal that it overcomes the flaws in the system. Whether the original had flaws or not has no impact on the ideal.
4. Extend my argument as to what the broad goal of NCLB is: "The bottom line of such is an aim at improving the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools." Even if the original was just horrible at doing this the ideal meets it. That's what an ideal is.

NCLB = expensive!
=========
1. First I'd say that expense is never going to do much of anything. Especially when we literally spend hundreds of billions on bailouts and wars. NCLB will never equal that.
2. But two, I'd argue that an education allows our people to be more competitive and actually increases country GDP in the long term.

Government intervention = bad
===================
A. My opponent argues that we should do a libertarian approach.
1. There's no support as to why government intervention in education is detrimental.
2. But we're still talking about an ideal. And the ideal would perfectly fulfill it's goal. Something which I'd argue is rather beneficial.
3. All schools enforce standards on children. Not just NCLB.
4. Even if libertarianism was good that doesn't disprove that ideal NCLB is also good. My opponent simply offers me another good thing.

Burden
======
A. My opponent argues I must prove the resolution true.
1. I'd say no, I just have to be more likely right than my opponent. Especially in a case where there is no empirical examples to look at.
2. I'd also argue that my opponents definitions are out of context. He says that welfare is the state of being happy and healthy and prosperous. However welfare modifies the United States in this sentence. How can the United States be Happy?
3. Counter definition. Welfare: Well-being. This is the common definition that can easily be found on any dictionary.
4. Also I'd argue that this means that I really do uphold the resolution. Extend where I say in my first round that higher education would improve vaccines thereby saving people. I think this would be one of the largest perks and easily proves that ideal NCLB is beneficial to the welfare of the United States.

I wish my opponent much luck!
oboeman

Con

Here goes:
As a message of notification, rebuttals and furthering of my initial contentions from Round 1 are presented in no specific format.

"[Oboeman] asks for a pragmatic plan on how to do this but that has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution."

Without a plan, how do we know that an ideal form of NCLB would indeed be beneficial to the United States? There are too many variables (e.g. cost) at stake that could affect the determining of whether or not the form is ideal or even feasible.

"In fact, it doesn't even have to be a real thing."

It must be a real thing. The resolution upholds that it would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States. The United States is a real thing. An imaginary concept cannot be beneficial to the United States. An imaginary concept does nothing to assist or harm the United States.

"The resolution does not say that I must divulge what the ideal form is. Rather it simply says that I must argue the ideal would be beneficial. Notice the WOULD BE in that sentence. It doesn't even matter if the ideal can be attained."

An ideal form of NCLB would seem awfully inflammatory with a sense of arrogance. To think that we have a perfected form of education is to think that we cannot strive to be better. In turn, without the yearn for further improvement, we would likely eventually begin to suffer in educational areas (e.g. courses, guidance, and better standards for teachers/students). The fact is, there is always room for improvement. Because of this essential postulate, an ideal form simply cannot exist. The forms of NCLB can always get better, but getting to an ideal form just cannot happen. It's like dividing by zero: it doesn't work. Indeed, my opponent must argue that an ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States. But considering an ideal form simply cannot exist, how can a nonexistent NCLB act be beneficial as such? This poses a serious conundrum to the case for Pro, as it simply does not work.

"The resolution doesn't say "Offer the ideal form of doing NCLB"."

How do we know the ideal form is beneficial if we do not even know what the ideal form entails?
Sub-categorically, the concept of an ideal is not what something is. Rather, it is how people view it. The possibility of an ideal form of NCLB coming into play is zero. That is everyone views his or her "ideal" in a different way. This fundamental truth inevitably creates that impossibility. An ideal is far too arbitrary to absolutely describe. There is no ideal form of NCLB for the United States. It is essentially a matter of opinion and individual perspective. For example, what definition of "ideal," according to whom, ought we to go by in determining this ideal form of NCLB? Should we accept the hypothetical form of that of the government? That puts a significant amount of power into their hands, in the theoretical determining of an eventual perfected form of NCLB. That is seemingly dangerous is the hands of anybody.

"First I'll argue this has no negative impact at all. The young adults who's numbers/names/etc are given are not forced to sign up."
2. Secondly I'd argue it's a good thing. The fact that so many numbers are coming in means that the military will have to hire more recruiters to manage phone lines. This gives more people jobs."

This is still exposing children to the evils of society. The most fundamental value our society can have is the respect to life. The military poses a threat to this value. And even though children are not forced to join, it is obviously encouraged. The safest route is to not unnecessarily expose children to the military at all.

"First I'd say that expense is never going to do much of anything. Especially when we literally spend hundreds of billions on bailouts and wars. NCLB will never equal that."

First off, this only provides further evidence toward my claim of the government being illogical. This nation should NOT be spending "hundreds of billions on bailouts and wars." Yet it is still being done. Can be truly trust our government to provide us with an ideal form of NCLB? Secondly, my opponent states that NCLB will not equal that much money anyway. This indicates that my opponent has some degree of knowledge regarding this ideal form. How can we be so sure that an ideal form will not be so costly? In order to deduce for certain, we must first know how the ideal form would work. This, again, is a burden for Pro.

"But two, I'd argue that an education allows our people to be more competitive and actually increases country GDP in the long term."

A less-than-ideal form, yet still extremely good, of education reform would do that as well. But having the word "ideal" in there leads one to necessarily infer that the policy would do whatever it takes to be considered "ideal." This is potentially dangerous fiscally and socially.

"I just have to be more likely right than my opponent."

The resolution clearly states, "An ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States." Ergo, the resolution either is necessarily true or it is not. As Pro, my opponent is affirming the resolution. As Con, however, I am not necessarily claiming the resolution to be explicitly false (although I largely still am anyway), but that Pro is incorrect.

"How can the United States be Happy?"

The state of being happy is the same as happiness. The United States can indeed have happiness, health, and prosperity. The United States consists of citizens, of which the definition would necessarily apply. "Well-being" is basically synonymous.
Secondly, on a similar topic note, who is to say that an ideal form of NCLB would be BENEFICIAL to the WELFARE of the United States (assuming the definition properties as provided)? The resolution implies that this ideal form would be promoting/enhancing the well-being of the state of happiness/health/prosperity (or even just "well-being") of the United States? This state of happiness/health/prosperity/well-being is based on opinion of each individual citizen in the nation. How can we be certain that such an ideal form of NCLB would indeed do such? Is my opponent suggesting an ability to look into the minds of others? As far as I know, proving that the citizens of this nation have that opinion seems futile and not possible. Please supply some insight on that if possible.

I look forward to the remainder of this fun debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Yraelz

Pro

I'll start by responding to what my opponent said.

"Without a plan, how do we know that an ideal form of NCLB would indeed be beneficial to the United States? There are too many variables (e.g. cost) at stake that could affect the determining of whether or not the form is ideal or even feasible."

>> That's not what the resolution asks. It's not talking about or asking how the plan would work. Furthermore the argument is moot especially at the point where my definition of an ideal being something in it's perfection just goes flat out conceded. No matter how the plan works it functions to perfectly meet it's ends. Most importantly though I think my opponent has a great deal of argumentation he could make as opposed to harping on this point. For instance he could be weaving a story about how improving education doesn't necessarily help anything or increase the welfare of the United States. Additionally he could be arguing that it's never the education but rather what children choose to do with that education. Yet my opponent just doesn't argue any of these things. Instead he chooses to harp on a point that the resolution mandates I make. This debate isn't about how the ideal function it's about whether the ideal is good or not. Thus if the impacts of the ideal are beneficial for the welfare then the resolution is affirmed. The impacts of NCLB are higher education and I argue that is beneficial. My opponent never refutes this thus I easily affirm this resolution.

"It must be a real thing....... An imaginary concept does nothing to assist or harm the United States."

>> No it doesn't. My opponents logic is that since the United States is a real thing then the ideal NCLB would be. Consider this sentence, "An ideal form of genie's who grant three wishes would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States." Do these genies have to be real because the United States is? I'd argue no . The fact that the resolution says "would" opens this debate into a hypothetical world where literally anything is possible.

Next my opponent argues this entire paragraph, "How do we know the ideal form is beneficial if we do not even know what the ideal form entails?...... That is seemingly dangerous is the hands of anybody."

>>An entire paragraph about how idealism is subjective and how it could be interpreted by anybody. I'm simply going to extend my definition. An ideal is something that meets its own goals perfectly. Not from the government's point of view.... not from my point of view... rather from what is perfect. In other words we're arguing an objective truth here. An ideal is something that meets it's goals perfectly. Meaning if there was anything imperfect about the governments version of ideal NCLB then that would not be the ideal. Rather the ideal is the perfection. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse.... sorry for the like 5x repeat.

"This is still exposing children to the evils of society. The most fundamental value our society can have is the respect to life. The military poses a threat to this value. And even though children are not forced to join, it is obviously encouraged. The safest route is to not unnecessarily expose children to the military at all."

>>An interesting argument except for the fact that you have to be 17 to sign up for the military and 18 to actually go to combat so they aren't really kids at that point. Additionally I'd still argue that having a broader range of possibilities is more beneficial to one's welfare. This give's one a greater amount of choices for their future. Finally I'd say the military isn't necessarily the evil's of society. I'd say the military can definitely do good but ultimately it's still one's choice to join so their is no harm. Freedom of choice ftw!

"First off, this only provides further evidence toward my claim of the government being illogical. This nation should NOT be spending "hundreds of billions on bailouts and wars." Yet it is still being done. Can be truly trust our government to provide us with an ideal form of NCLB? Secondly, my opponent states that NCLB will not equal that much money anyway. This indicates that my opponent has some degree of knowledge regarding this ideal form. How can we be so sure that an ideal form will not be so costly? In order to deduce for certain, we must first know how the ideal form would work. This, again, is a burden for Pro."

>>Actually my opponent has a really solid point here. It does appear that I know something of the workings of NCLB from this sentence. Yet I'd still argue the same two things. From an intuitive standpoint no one program has surpassed the kind of unprecedented spending we have seen in the bailout, stimulus, and Iraqi war. Thus I'd say from a mere probability factor this will still cost less than that considering it's a social welfare/education program. Secondarily though I make an argument on how having an education will lead to greater amounts of money in the long term. My opponent never refutes this. Thus even if one agrees with my opponents analysis on the first part then we'll still make that money back in the long term. But either way there are no impacts to deficit spending as outlined by my opponent so I don't think anyone would vote here anyways.

"A less-than-ideal form, yet still extremely good, of education reform would do that as well. But having the word "ideal" in there leads one to necessarily infer that the policy would do whatever it takes to be considered "ideal." This is potentially dangerous fiscally and socially."

>>And here's where my opponent literally concedes that the ideal form would bring back more money in the long term. He says that a less than ideal but very good version could do this too. That's a good point, but the resolution is whether or not an ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial no whether an alternative that is lesser but still good would be. Thus my opponent concedes this to me. Furthermore my opponent says that it is potentially dangerous fiscally and socially but there's no warrant as to why that would be true. In fact I think I give a lot of analysis on why that wouldn't be the case especially when I'm arguing that this system would perfect education. Perfect education > nebulous "dangerous fiscally and socially" stuff my opponent is arguing for.

"The resolution clearly states, "An ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States." Ergo, the resolution either is necessarily true or it is not........ Please supply some insight on that if possible"

>>Right, it is necessarily true or it is not. But this debate is going to be judged on who best convinces the judges of which side is so. Thus if I best convince the judges that my side is most probably right I win. Otherwise my opponent wins. Expecting one side to prove the resolution 100% would be a rather unfair burden.

Also my opponent argues that happiness can describe the United States. I'd say this is still false because the United States can't express emotion. But secondly I argued my definition was better because it was the common definition from any dictionary and my opponent conceded that point.

To sum this all up. My opponent literally offers no offense for why an ideal form of NCLB would be a bad thing. I tell you that it would increase education which would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States and that goes dropped. At the end of this debate there is literally no reason to not vote Pro, con has given literally no reason why it wouldn't be beneficial. Rather he simply offers a litany of reasons why he doesn't like arguing against an ideal. Please extend my analysis from last round on why this doesn't matter. Finally I'd ask that no new argument are accepted in his final speech as I would have no chance to answer. I think my opponent has already had ample chance to argue against an ideal and has failed to do. Anyways, thank you to everyone!
oboeman

Con

Here goes:

"It's not talking about or asking how the plan would work…The impacts of NCLB are higher education and I argue that is beneficial."

The way in which NCLB would be considered "ideal," as my opponent has stated, would be if it perfectly meets the criterion addressed in Round 1: improving the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools.

There is still nothing to do with cost or other potential significant variables in this objective of NCLB. These variables are not controlled with this type of ideal NCLB, and thus could work as a detriment to the welfare of the United States, such as making the country extremely weak(er) financially, easily making the nation more vulnerable to all types of damage.

"[Oboeman's] logic is that since the United States is a real thing then the ideal NCLB would be."

Rather, my point was that, by a real thing, I meant something that is known in regards to what it is. In the case of a genie, it is known as to what that all entails. In the case of an ideal form of NCLB, my opponent still fails to go any farther than barely hint on what this would entail.

"An ideal is something that meets its own goals perfectly. Not from the government's point of view.... not from my point of view... rather from what is perfect. In other words we're arguing an objective truth here. Meaning if there was anything imperfect about the governments version of ideal NCLB then that would not be the ideal. Rather the ideal is the perfection."

Still, though, the entire concept of meeting something at its perfection is indescribable on an absolute basis. It could be considered meeting its goals perfectly, at its current form, by some. No matter how much revising and idealizing is done with NCLB, the concept of it being perfect, and therefore at an ideal, is not possible. An objective truth as my opponent describes is not possible. This definition of a given form of NCLB being beneficial, or ideal, is going to change from one person to another.

"...Additionally I'd still argue that having a broader range of possibilities is more beneficial to one's welfare....Finally I'd say the military isn't necessarily the [evils] of society. I'd say the military can definitely do good but ultimately it's still one's choice to join so their is no harm."

Regardless of age limitations, the act of merely exposing and influencing a child in military affairs is a detriment to the most fundamental value of society. It increases the chances that that child will join. While it does give an additional possibility, consider the possibilities and opportunities lost for the innocent civilians that are killed as a result of military combat. I would hardly consider this to be beneficial to the welfare of anyone. Finally, it is not the choice of an innocent civilian to be killed as part of a casualty of war. This is harm caused. The fundamental integration of military influence in NCLB serves as a detriment to values and overall social welfare.

"From an intuitive standpoint no one program has surpassed the kind of unprecedented spending we have seen in the bailout, stimulus, and Iraqi war. Thus I'd say from a mere probability factor this will still cost less than that considering it's a social welfare/education program."

This does not prove that an ideal form of NCLB would be cost-friendly. Remember this: rarely, if ever, has the United States passed an ideal form of a bill or law. Thus, the concept of having an ideal act is almost inconceivable; it's uncharted territory. Probability also fails to necessarily prove that an ideal form of NCLB would favor the nation fiscally. The resolution does not state that an ideal form of NCLB would PROBABLY be beneficial, but rather that "an ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial".

"Secondarily though I make an argument on how having an education will lead to greater amounts of money in the long term."

Although having an education may in the long run make more money, it is still not possible to determine the outcome of how it may be more significant than the initial cost anyway.

"Furthermore my opponent says that it is potentially dangerous fiscally and socially but there's no warrant as to why that would be true."

A less-than-ideal form might be able to decrease the cost ten-fold, in comparison to an ideal form of NCLB. Being specifically at any ideal means the objective is obtained in its entirety. Just by having its entirety in there could result in spending billions of more dollars. This would not be beneficial to the welfare of the United States. It is much easier to create an efficient system than a perfect system. Again, my opponent does not specify on how the ideal system would function, so we don't know how dangerous this system could become.

"But this debate is going to be judged on who best convinces the judges of which side is so."

Yet if I am able to logically refute all of the points presented by my opponent, I still win.

"United States can't express emotion."

Consider the resolution, referring to the "welfare of the United States." The United States consists of citizens that the term welfare is referring to.

As an outline, these are the main reasons to vote CON:
The possibility of having an ideal form of NCLB is zero, considering educational reforms can always improve (See Round 2; as well, this goes unrefuted).
Next, my opponent cannot prove that ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial, as an ideal form is subjective to each individual, and whether or not it would be beneficial is similarly arbitrary. Whether something is beneficial is an opinion, and it varies from person to person.
A perfected form of such an act could cost trillions; it is not possible to know for certain, as my opponent fails to derive and describe an ideal form of NCLB. Such a large increase in spending would be detrimental (not beneficial) to the welfare of the United States.
I refuted the points made by my opponent to a logical degree.
(Refer to all debate rounds as well.)

For the reasons described in this debate, it would be logical to vote CON.

I would like to thank my opponent for this exciting debate. And good luck in the rest of the tournament. It has been quite an intriguing debate.
Cheers,
Oboeman
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
Haha =P
Wow, that was a close one.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
What logical? Did you jack my argument!?
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
On second thought, I take that back. This is NOT abusive. ;)
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Hold on! Wait! Oboeman you are at quite an advantage. EDUCATION IS EVIL! Go get em tiger!
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"I'd argue that increased education is a definite benefit to the welfare of the United States. "

LOL! One of the most abusive legitimate resolutions I have ever seen. I'm probably going to lose this debate, but heck, I think I'll be using the same argument. :D
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
YraelzoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
YraelzoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
YraelzoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Crust89 8 years ago
Crust89
YraelzoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by NOK_Domination 8 years ago
NOK_Domination
YraelzoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07